RoyalDude wrote:It's all pointing to a buyout. First Lou will get waived then After all the GMs have snubbed there nose to that contract. Gillis gets out the papers and Aqua gets out the pen with an angry eye casted upon Gillis that says "you're on borrowed time now my friend"

It's obvious now that contracts like Lou's and Vinnys and Bryzs just ain't no good for the payroll

On the surface yeah it's not looking good for a trade, but bryzglalov is a sieve and vinnies best days are behind him 04 being nearly a decade ago. Whilst luongo is in his prime and that position is longer lived..,
I still believe that his contract is a negotiating ploy to get his trade value down.

Topper wrote:Bryz had a cap hit similar to Lou's but performed like Reimer.

Vinnie had a hit of $7.7mil

Two very different stories Dude

Our biggest strength was apparently our goaltending and they shit the bed for us two playoffs in a row. Exactly what is so good about luongo to wanna make another GM take ownership of a massive contract on a 34 year old goalie who really isn't all that

But again I hope I'm wrong and you are right Topper

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

RoyalDude wrote:Our biggest strength was apparently our goaltending and they shit the bed for us two playoffs in a row.

Are you suggesting we lost the last two first round series because of goaltending? Because you're taking revisionist history to a new level if that's the case.

No, but according to everyone and the moon our biggest strength was our goaltending, built from the rear out. We had a lot of money invested there, A LOT, cause apparently they were worth it and KEY to our success. In which successful they were not, that is unless you don't mind the first round exits two years in a row (in 4 straight games to the sharks) and are quite content with the much ballyhooed Presidents Trophy and no Stanley Cup 43 years running. Anyhow, it only proves, at least to me it does, that investing a large amount of a teams payroll in the nets really isn't all that and that some GM's, I think more than a few, may agree and may think that all they need is a Brobovsky combined with a defensive specialist coach who can convince his team to play the modern game of collapsing as a five man unit around the net. If it's Team Defense and coaching that wins, why spend a fortune on goaltending? A FORTUNE?

The long and short of it, Luongo isn't playing elite level goaltending, enough to justify a GM wanting to take on such a big long contract on a goalie who is 34 years old in Cap era hockey where the league just tightened the screws of the lid.

Last edited by RoyalDude on Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

RoyalDude wrote:Our biggest strength was apparently our goaltending and they shit the bed for us two playoffs in a row.

Are you suggesting we lost the last two first round series because of goaltending? Because you're taking revisionist history to a new level if that's the case.

No, but according to everyone and the moon our biggest strength was our goaltending, built from the rear out. We had a lot of money invested there, A LOT, cause apparently they were worth it and KEY to our success. Only proving that investing a large amount of a teams payroll in the nets really isn't all that and that some GM's, I think more than a few, may think they have the next Brobovsky if they have a defensive specialist coach who can convince his team to play the modern game of collapsing as a five man unit around the net.

The long and short of it, Luongo isn't playing elite level goaltending, enough to justify a GM wanting to take on such a big long contract on a goalie who is 34 years old in Cap era hockey where the league just tightened the screws of the lid.